- Email: [email protected]
Discussion: Responses to the Bowman Expedition editorials
Political Geography 30 (2011) 110
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Political Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/polgeo
Discussion: Responses to the Bowman Expedition editorials The December 2010 issue of Political Geography (Vol. 29, no. 8) included a series of editorials on the American Geographical Society’s Bowman Expeditions (Agnew, 2010; Bryan, 2010; Cruz, 2010; Herlihy, 2010; Steinberg, 2010). After the editorials had gone to press, two of the four guest editorialists, independent of each other, requested an opportunity to clarify their points or correct what they saw as misstatements of facts in others’ editorials. In the interest of fairness, the Political Geography editorial team invited responses of 250 words or less from all four guest editorialists, although only the two who originally requested an opportunity submitted responses. These appear below. Philip E. Steinberg Reviews Editor Political Geography E-mail: [email protected] My intervention was intended to raise a pair of questions: under what conditions is it acceptable for geographers to receive military funding? Furthermore, what ethical concerns does such funding raise? Asking those questions does not compromise scholarly integrity. Failure to address them does. The México Indígena case compellingly raises these concerns with its well-documented link between the highest ranks of the US Army and academic geographers. As John Agnew suggests, these are old concerns that can neither be resolved by mandates nor investigations into alleged “crimes.” But that does not excuse the AAG Statement of Ethics’ silence on the question of military funding. The Statement must be revised to address this omission if the integrity of the discipline is of any concern, to say nothing of the questions raised by the affected communities. Ethics statements should frame debates rather than adjudicate them. To do otherwise is to accept Peter Herlihy’s argument that the ends justify the means e if the community benefits, the funding source does not matter. Kiado Cruz’s comments demonstrate the hollowness of that position, capturing the compromises that mapping holds for the people and places involved. That level of nuance is essential to
0962-6298/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2011.01.007
having the sort of debate needed, and the editors of this journal are to be commended for ensuring his participation. One can hope other journals will follow suit. Lastly, a copyediting error on my part implies that Sarah Radcliffe shares Herlihy’s and Dobson’s view of indigenous movements as potential security threats. She does not. Joe Bryan Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder E-mail: [email protected] Contrary to the impression left by Melquiades (Kiado) Cruz in his commentary, our AGS Bowman Expedition México Indígena project did receive approval from the community assembly of Yagavila during July 4e10th 2006, but we voluntarily withdrew in August 2006 after an APPO-influenced faction within the community expressed its concerns. We then destroyed the only ten questionnaires completed. No results from Yagavila were processed, presented, or displayed in our GIS, website, or publications. Peter H. Herlihy Department of Geography, University of Kansas E-mail: [email protected]
References Agnew, J. (2010). Ethics or militarism: the role of the AAG in what was originally a dispute over informed consent. Political Geography, 29(8), 422e423. Bryan, J. (2010). Force multipliers: geography, militarism, and the Bowman Expeditions. Political Geography, 29(8), 414e416. Cruz, M. (2010). A living space: the relationship between land and property in the community. Political Geography, 29(8), 420e421. Herlihy, P. H. (2010). Self-appointed gatekeepers attack the American Geographical Society’s first Bowman Expedition. Political Geography, 29(8), 417e419. Steinberg, P. E. (2010). Professional ethics and the politics of geographic knowledge: the Bowman Expeditions 29(8), 413.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Political Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/polgeo
Discussion: Responses to the Bowman Expedition editorials The December 2010 issue of Political Geography (Vol. 29, no. 8) included a series of editorials on the American Geographical Society’s Bowman Expeditions (Agnew, 2010; Bryan, 2010; Cruz, 2010; Herlihy, 2010; Steinberg, 2010). After the editorials had gone to press, two of the four guest editorialists, independent of each other, requested an opportunity to clarify their points or correct what they saw as misstatements of facts in others’ editorials. In the interest of fairness, the Political Geography editorial team invited responses of 250 words or less from all four guest editorialists, although only the two who originally requested an opportunity submitted responses. These appear below. Philip E. Steinberg Reviews Editor Political Geography E-mail: [email protected] My intervention was intended to raise a pair of questions: under what conditions is it acceptable for geographers to receive military funding? Furthermore, what ethical concerns does such funding raise? Asking those questions does not compromise scholarly integrity. Failure to address them does. The México Indígena case compellingly raises these concerns with its well-documented link between the highest ranks of the US Army and academic geographers. As John Agnew suggests, these are old concerns that can neither be resolved by mandates nor investigations into alleged “crimes.” But that does not excuse the AAG Statement of Ethics’ silence on the question of military funding. The Statement must be revised to address this omission if the integrity of the discipline is of any concern, to say nothing of the questions raised by the affected communities. Ethics statements should frame debates rather than adjudicate them. To do otherwise is to accept Peter Herlihy’s argument that the ends justify the means e if the community benefits, the funding source does not matter. Kiado Cruz’s comments demonstrate the hollowness of that position, capturing the compromises that mapping holds for the people and places involved. That level of nuance is essential to
0962-6298/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2011.01.007
having the sort of debate needed, and the editors of this journal are to be commended for ensuring his participation. One can hope other journals will follow suit. Lastly, a copyediting error on my part implies that Sarah Radcliffe shares Herlihy’s and Dobson’s view of indigenous movements as potential security threats. She does not. Joe Bryan Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder E-mail: [email protected] Contrary to the impression left by Melquiades (Kiado) Cruz in his commentary, our AGS Bowman Expedition México Indígena project did receive approval from the community assembly of Yagavila during July 4e10th 2006, but we voluntarily withdrew in August 2006 after an APPO-influenced faction within the community expressed its concerns. We then destroyed the only ten questionnaires completed. No results from Yagavila were processed, presented, or displayed in our GIS, website, or publications. Peter H. Herlihy Department of Geography, University of Kansas E-mail: [email protected]
References Agnew, J. (2010). Ethics or militarism: the role of the AAG in what was originally a dispute over informed consent. Political Geography, 29(8), 422e423. Bryan, J. (2010). Force multipliers: geography, militarism, and the Bowman Expeditions. Political Geography, 29(8), 414e416. Cruz, M. (2010). A living space: the relationship between land and property in the community. Political Geography, 29(8), 420e421. Herlihy, P. H. (2010). Self-appointed gatekeepers attack the American Geographical Society’s first Bowman Expedition. Political Geography, 29(8), 417e419. Steinberg, P. E. (2010). Professional ethics and the politics of geographic knowledge: the Bowman Expeditions 29(8), 413.